Dave: Not really. In the first place, you've assumed knowledge of the
probabilities, which Keith has been at pains to deny, and which I seconded.

Josh: I wrote, and conceded: "because we cannot perform calculations and we
don't know all the relevant factors involved, nor might we be able to. If
everyone agrees that the probabilities are unknown, let's move on.

Dave: "God in all things requires that he is not the immediate material or
efficient cause, to use the ancient terminology. But God as cause is
implicit in your "infinitely improbable without God having some part in the
outcome selection process."

Josh: Now that I am buried in my Dec 2002 issue of PCSF today, I will quote
the point I am making that has already been printed for me made by Mark
Discher (whom I am noticing has made several points I am bringing up, and
thus I am being redundant in some respects):

"The IDer, in other words, need not deny remote intelligent causation when
the evidence points to something like RFEP, but this does not rule out the
possibility that the evidence in at least some instances...... is pointing
to the conclusion that there also has been proximate intelligent causation
along the way."

Dave: "Your final paragraph below also assumes that God has to intervene in
a way that is obvious. But ID and OEC do not apply this to the development
of the universe with its fine tuning, but only to biology. If ID is truly
relevant, then they need also to point out causal gaps in the cosmology."

Josh: As a cell & molecular biologist/Biochemist I feel no impetus to
develop arguments on cosmology to defend my analysis of biological systems.
Cosmology is interesting, and somebody else is studying it. Perhaps if we
could assimilate the knowledge and expertise of the most technical
information from cosmology and biochemistry into our minds at once, we
wouldn't be at such polar opposites on the design in biological systems
issue. Another quote from Mark Discher for fun:

"...[This] objection seems to be an attempt to pin IDers on the horns of a
false dilemma; either all design is remote, or all design is proximate-
which will it be? Nothing, however, prevents IDers from responding:
'Sometimes it is the one, sometimes the other.'"